The Eternal Breakfast Debate in a New Place

[subcontrabass]

Such a confected, pasteurised delivery and hard to listen to because she’s so often emoting. Those little inflexions of ‘feeling’ in her sentences.

Possibly too much of the actress coming out.

[Serial_Apologist]

Possibly too much of the actress coming out.

Is she gay?

[antongould]

Thank you for my welcome. I increasingly resort to streaming Through the Night or anything presented by Donald Macleod rather than have that vacuous voice (CBH) penetrate the inner ear at the start of the day. I can’t pin-point just why she’s so utterly nauseous. Such a confected, pasteurised delivery and hard to listen to because she’s so often emoting. Those little inflexions of ‘feeling’ in her sentences. (Petroc whats-his-face isn’t a great deal better.) If I do mistakenly stray onto CBH-PT ‘Breakfast' I always experience a prompter and fuller-than-normal early-am bowel movement. The point, for me, there’s nowhere else to go, radio-wise.

Where is radio64 when clemmers needs him????

[Padraig]

Where is radio64 when clemmers needs him????

Until that time, may I ask hosts, administrators and long standing members if personal attacka on named presenters have been discouraged? If so, then it's a shame that a new contributor should be encouraged to indulge in the same distasteful comment that we all know and hate so well, without a word of criticism from those who know better.

[Zucchini]

Quite right Padraig

[antongould]

Until that time, may I ask hosts, administrators and long standing members if personal attacka on named presenters have been discouraged? If so, then it's a shame that a new contributor should be encouraged to indulge in the same distasteful comment that we all know and hate so well, without a word of criticism from those who know better.

Couldn't agree more.......

[french frank]

Until that time, may I ask hosts, administrators and long standing members if personal attacka on named presenters have been discouraged? If so, then it's a shame that a new contributor should be encouraged to indulge in the same distasteful comment that we all know and hate so well, without a word of criticism from those who know better.

It is discouraged by the forum administration, not least because it is a fixed policy of Friends of Radio 3 not to attack individuals (though be it noted that the forum and FoR3 are not one and the same). The adminstration tries to keep order but forum members do not toe a 'party line'. On personal attacks on presenters, a degree of forum self-regulation is much appreciated.

We believe that in some cases presenters have been chosen and their style of presentation has been dictated/encouraged in line with a Radio 3 management policy. We disagree with that policy (insofar as the aim to include one set of listeners excludes another set) and would like to see it buried as soon as possible.

It is a moot point whether remaining polite, reasoned and constructive is an effective way of campaigning … Sadly

[Padraig]

Thank you, f f.

I have said my piece.

[Stanfordian]

It is discouraged by the forum administration, not least because it is a fixed policy of Friends of Radio 3 not to attack individuals (though be it noted that the forum and FoR3 are not one and the same). The adminstration tries to keep order but forum members do not toe a 'party line'. On personal attacks on presenters, a degree of forum self-regulation is much appreciated.

We believe that in some cases presenters have been chosen and their style of presentation has been dictated/encouraged in line with a Radio 3 management policy. We disagree with that policy (insofar as the aim to include one set of listeners excludes another set) and would like to see it buried as soon as possible.

It is a moot point whether remaining polite, reasoned and constructive is an effective way of campaigning … Sadly

Hiya french frank,

With presenters being such an integral part of BBC Radio 3 of course board members should be allowed to state their opinion and criticise if they see fit as long as it is not libellous and hopefully in reasonably good taste. Of course there will be some people who are uncomfortable with what others write but otherwise a worrying censorship comes into place which is I believe even worse for the integrity of the site.

[alycidon]

Agreed, Stanfordian. I contribute to one or two other forums, non-music related, and the general tenor of the posts, and the language used, makes me cringe. I abhor any nastiness of any description, but I will defend the right of all of us to make constructive comment, and if that involves naming names, then so be it. My view is that some presenters sit up and beg for it, and at times, actively encourage it by their words and deeds.

[Richard Tarleton]

It's in a way unfortunate that the new controller singled out said named presenter for lavish praise recently, which rather boxes him in and polarises the situation. We don't know what is said behind the scenes, but perhaps greater distinction needs to be made between what we know presenters are capable of (better things) and what they're expected to do, or have been expected to do, on Breakfast.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

It's in a way unfortunate that the new controller singled out said named presenter for lavish praise recently, which rather boxes him in and polarises the situation. We don't know what is said behind the scenes, but perhaps greater distinction needs to be made between what we know presenters are capable of (better things) and what they're expected to do, or have been expected to do, on Breakfast.

Well we know CB-H is far better than she seems to be on Breakfast. She was fine on that Bach TV documentary, when she also played the violin rather well. So if we criticise her Breakfast broadcasts, we are not really attacking the person, but the artificially insipid presentation. style.

[french frank]

It's in a way unfortunate that the new controller singled out said named presenter for lavish praise recently, which rather boxes him in and polarises the situation. We don't know what is said behind the scenes, but perhaps greater distinction needs to be made between what we know presenters are capable of (better things) and what they're expected to do, or have been expected to do, on Breakfast.

I'm trying to find that article, RT. My hunch is that he might have been supporting, or have specifically been asked about, a presenter who had been singled out by others. And one who has publicly denounced her critics as 'the gatekeepers of some mystical classical high culture saying you can’t come in'.

My feeling about her comments was that they showed either singular obtuseness; or, more likely, a cynical reliance on the fact that she could make whatever claims she liked in the full knowledge that the interviewer would be ill-equipped to bother her with difficult questions.

We don't have the advantages of a national newspaper to interview us (nor an agent to arrange publicity and make sure the journalist is aware of every proof of our astounding brilliance).

[Richard Tarleton]

I can't remember where I saw it possibly the S Times which doesn't help much

But I agree with your comments, ff.

[Andrew Slater]

I'm trying to find that article, RT.

In case you haven't found it, it's in the Times letter of 14/04/2015, but the reason for making the statement is unclear.